Lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic in selected countries to inform strengthening of public health systems: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted governments internationally to consider strengthening their public health systems. To support the work of Ireland's Public Health Reform Expert Advisory Group, the Health Information and Quality Authority, an independent governmental agency, was asked to describe the lessons learnt regarding the public health response to COVID-19 internationally and the applicability of this response for future pandemic preparedness.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with key public health representatives from nine countries were conducted. Interviews were conducted in March and April 2022 remotely via Zoom and were recorded. Notes were taken by two researchers, and a thematic analysis undertaken.

RESULTS

Lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic related to three main themes: 1) setting policy; 2) delivering public health interventions; and 3) providing effective communication. Real-time surveillance, evidence synthesis, and cross-sectoral collaboration were reported as essential for policy setting; it was noted that having these functions established prior to the pandemic would lead to a more efficient implementation in a health emergency. Delivering public health interventions such as testing, contact tracing, and vaccination were key to limiting and or mitigating the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, a number of challenges were highlighted such as staff capacity and burnout, delays in vaccination procurement, and reduced delivery of regular healthcare services. Clear, consistent, and regular communication of the scientific evidence was key to engaging citizens with mitigation strategies. However, these communication strategies had to compete with an infodemic of information being circulated, particularly through social media.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, functions relating to policy setting, public health interventions, and communication are key to pandemic response. Ideally, these should be established in the preparedness phase so that they can be rapidly scaled-up during a pandemic.

The effectiveness and cost of integrating pharmacists within general practice to optimize prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy and associated potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) place a considerable burden on patients and represent a challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Integration of pharmacists within general practice (herein 'pharmacist integration') may improve medications management and patient outcomes. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and costs of pharmacist integration.

METHODS

A systematic search of ten databases from inception to January 2021 was conducted. Studies that evaluated the effectiveness or cost of pharmacist integration were included. Eligible interventions were those that targeted medications optimization compared to usual GP care without pharmacist integration (herein 'usual care'). Primary outcomes were PIP (as measured by PIP screening tools) and number of prescribed medications. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, health service utilization, clinical outcomes, and costs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, interrupted-time-series, controlled before-after trials and health-economic studies were included. Screening and risk of bias using Cochrane EPOC criteria were conducted by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of outcomes where possible, were conducted; the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

In total, 23 studies (28 full text articles) met the inclusion criteria. In ten of 11 studies, pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP in comparison to usual care (moderate certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of number of medications in seven studies reported a mean difference of -0.80 [-1.17, -0.43], which indicated pharmacist integration probably reduced number of medicines (moderate certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether pharmacist integration improved health-related quality of life because the certainty of evidence was very low. Twelve health-economic studies were included; three investigated cost effectiveness. The outcome measured differed across studies limiting comparisons and making it difficult to make conclusions on cost effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP and number of medications however, there was no clear effect on other patient outcomes; and while interventions in a small number of studies appeared to be cost-effective, further robust, well-designed cluster RCTs with economic evaluations are required to determine cost-effectiveness of pharmacist integration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42019139679.

High level review of configuration and reform of Public Health systems in selected countries

Background

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted governments internationally to consider reform and strengthening of their Public Health systems. To support this work in Ireland, we undertook a review Public Health systems internationally (research question [RQ] 1), and identified lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic (RQ2).

Methods

Data relating to Public Health systems (RQ1), and lessons learned (RQ2) for a select group of 12 countries were identified from organisations’ websites, an electronic database and grey literature search and representatives from key national-level organisations. Data for RQ1 were extracted, mapped to the 12 Essential Public Health functions (EPHFs) at national, regional and local levels, and verified by participating representatives. For RQ2, thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with participating representatives was undertaken and.

Results

Typically, across all included countries, there is national strategic oversight of all EPHFs and, for certain functions, there is regional and local level implementation. Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic broadly related to the themes of legislation and decision making; data collection, surveillance, evidence synthesis and collaboration; public health interventions; public participation, public messaging and communication; continuation of healthcare services; and workforce capacity and resilience.

Conclusions

When structuring Public Health systems, there is a need to identify which functions, and or which elements of a function, should be delivered at a national, regional or local level to ensure a sustainable and comprehensive Public Health system. Appropriate IT infrastructure, strong communication and an established evidence synthesis function are key to timely and informed decision making. Ideally, these functions should be established during periods of relative stability to permit a faster response during a pandemic or emergency situation.

Processes for updating guidelines: protocol for a systematic review

Background: National Clinical Guidelines are systematically developed statements, based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence, to assist practitioner and service users’ decisions. Clinical guidelines require updating to ensure validly of the recommendations contained within. The purpose of this systematic review is to describe the most recent guideline update processes, including prioritisation methods, used by international or national groups who provide methods guidance for developing and updating clinical guidelines. Methods: A combination of searching a pre-defined list of international and national organisations that provide methods guidance for developing and updating clinical guidelines, together with grey literature searching, will be undertaken to identify relevant handbooks. This will be supplemented by a systematic literature search of Medline (EBSCO), Embase (OVID) and The Cochrane Methodology Register. As guideline development methodology has evolved considerably, the overall search span for this systematic review will be the last 10-years (2011-2021). Publications eligible for inclusion are methodological handbooks that provide updating guidance, including prioritisation methods, for clinical practice guidelines and peer-reviewed articles that describe or have implemented updating guidance, including prioritisation methods. Using Covidence, two reviewers will independently review titles/abstracts and full texts. Where disagreements occur, discussions will be held to reach consensus and where necessary, a third reviewer will be involved. Methodological handbooks will be quality assessed (using the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist) independently by two reviewers and any disagreements will be resolved by deliberation, or if necessary, a third reviewer. Data will be extracted by one reviewer and checked for inaccuracies/omissions by a second. A narrative synthesis will be undertaken. Conclusions: Updating clinical guidelines is an iterative process that is both resource intensive and time-consuming. The findings of this systematic review will support clinical guideline developers to ensure appropriate investment of resources.

COVID-19 - Interventions and lifestyle factors that prevent infection or minimise progression to severe disease

Background

This evidence summary synthesised the evidence relating to pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in the community to prevent COVID-19/progression to severe disease. An additional aim was to identify potentially modifiable lifestyle factors associated with reduced risk of infection/progression to severe disease.

Methods

A systematic search of published peer-reviewed articles and non-peer-reviewed pre-prints was undertaken from 1 January 2020 to 19 April 2021; no language restrictions were applied. All potentially eligible papers were exported to Covidence. Titles/abstracts and full texts were single screened for relevance. Data extraction and quality appraisal of included studies was completed by a single reviewer and checked by a second.

Results

In total, 50 studies, three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one non-RCT and 46 cohort studies were included. The four included controlled trials tested variations of the pharmacological intervention, ivermectin. While these controlled trials reported a protective effect for ivermectin use, these trials were of poor quality and had serious risk of bias. Across 46 cohort studies, the modifiable lifestyle risk factors identified were obesity, smoking, vitamin D status, physical activity, alcohol consumption and processed meat consumption. These studies reported mixed results in terms of the association between modifiable lifestyle risk factors and poor COVID-19 outcomes.

Conclusions

At the time of writing there is no high quality evidence of benefit to support pharmacological interventions to prevent COVID-19. Although there were mixed results for the risk factors identified, maintenance of healthy weight, smoking cessation, engaging in physical activity and moderation of alcohol and processed meat consumption are likely to be beneficial to health and should continue to be encouraged.

Pharmacological interventions to prevent Covid-19 disease: A rapid review

The aim of this rapid review was to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions (excluding vaccines) to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19) or reduce the severity of disease. A systematic search of published peer‐reviewed articles and non‐peer‐reviewed pre‐prints was undertaken from 1 January 2020 to 17 August 2021. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one non‐RCT were included; three trials (two RCTs and one non‐RCT) tested ivermectin with or without carrageenan. While all reported some potential protective effect of ivermectin, these trials had a high risk of bias and the certainty of evidence was deemed to be ‘very low’. One RCT tested bamlanivimab compared to placebo and reported a significantly reduced incidence of Covid‐19 in the intervention group; this trial had a low risk of bias however the certainty of evidence was deemed ‘very low’. The fifth RCT tested casirivimab plus imdevimab versus placebo and reported that the combination of monoclonal antibodies significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, viral load, duration of symptomatic disease and the duration of a high viral load; this trial was deemed to have a low risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was ‘low’. The designations ‘low' and ‘very low’ regarding the certainty of evidence indicate that the estimate of effect is uncertain and therefore is unsuitable for informing decision‐making. At the time of writing, there is insufficient high quality evidence to support the use of pharmacological interventions to prevent Covid‐19.

Effectiveness of public health measures to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at mass gatherings: A rapid review

Mass gatherings play an important role in society, but since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, they have generally been restricted in order to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this study was to summarise the evidence regarding the effectiveness of public health measures at preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 at mass gatherings, and hence inform guidance on the organisation of these events. A rapid review was undertaken in Cochrane, Embase (OVID), Medline (OVID), Google, Web of Science and Europe PMC from 1 January 2020 to 3 June 2021. Of the identified 1,624 citations, 14 articles referring to 11 unique studies were included. This rapid review found evidence from 11 studies (involving approximately 30,482 participants) that implementing a range of measures may reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission at mass gatherings; however, it is unlikely that this risk can be eliminated entirely. All studies adopted a layered mitigation approach involving multiple measures, which may be more effective than relying on any single measure. The number and intensity of measures implemented varied across studies, with most implementing resource intense measures. Importantly, all included studies were only of 'fair' to 'poor' quality. In conclusion, there is currently limited evidence on the effectiveness of measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission at mass gatherings. As mass gatherings recommence, continued adoption of known mitigation measures is required to limit the risk of transmission, as well as ongoing research and surveillance to monitor the potential impact of these events on the wider population and healthcare system.

A rapid review of measures to support people in isolation or quarantine during the Covid-19 pandemic and the effectiveness of such measures

This rapid review aimed to identify measures available to support those in isolation or quarantine during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid‐19) pandemic, and determine their effectiveness in improving adherence to these recommendations and or reducing transmission. The rapid review consisted of two elements, the first was a review of guidance published by national and international agencies relating to measures to support those in isolation (due to case status) or quarantine (due to close contact status) during the Covid‐19 pandemic. Five categories of support measures were identified in the international guidance, they were: Psychological, addiction and safety supports, Essential supplies, Financial aid, Information provision and Enforcement. The second element was a rapid literature review of the effectiveness of measures used to support individuals in isolation or quarantine during any pandemic or epidemic setting, due to respiratory pathogens. A systematic search of published peer‐reviewed articles and nonpeer‐reviewed pre‐prints was undertaken from 1 January 2000 to 26 January 2021. Two Australian publications met the inclusion criteria, both based on data from a survey undertaken during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. The first reported that 55% of households were fully compliant with quarantine recommendations, and that there was increased compliance reported in households that understood what they were meant to do compared with those who reported that they did not (odds ratio [OR]: 2.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35–3.80). The second reported that access to paid sick and or carer's leave did not predict compliance with quarantine recommendations (OR: 2.07, 95% CI: 0.82–5.23). Neither reported on reduction in transmission.

Integrating clinical pharmacists within general practice: protocol for a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Managing patients with multiple conditions (multimorbidity) is a major challenge for healthcare systems internationally, particularly in older patients. Multimorbidity and subsequent polypharmacy increase treatment burden and the risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing, and both are complex to manage in primary care. Limited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into general practice teams could improve medication management for patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Building on findings from a non-randomised, uncontrolled General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) feasibility study conducted in Irish primary care, the aim of this study is to conduct a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of the GPP study, to assess feasibility, intervention impact, costs and appropriateness of continuing to a definitive cRCT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This pilot cRCT will involve 8 general practitioner (GP) practices and 120 patients. Practices will identify and recruit patients aged ≥65 years, who are taking ≥10 regular medications. Practices will be allocated to intervention or control after baseline data collection. Intervention practices will have a pharmacist integrated within their service, working with GPs, patients and practice staff to optimise prescribing and other medication-related activities. Control practices will provide standard GP care. The primary feasibility outcomes will include recruitment rate, uptake of medication reviews and study retention. For the primary clinical outcome, the number of potentially inappropriate prescribing incidences per patient will be collected. Secondary outcomes will include medication-related outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures, and data pertaining to the role and impact of the pharmacist on prescribing. In addition, economic and process evaluations will be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial has been approved by the Irish College of General Practitioners Research Ethics Committee and will be performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and be presented at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN Registry (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18752158).

The duration of infectiousness of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence on the duration of infectiousness of individuals in whom SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid is detected.

METHODS

A rapid review was undertaken in PubMed, Europe PubMed Central and EMBASE from 1 January 2020 to 26 August 2020.

RESULTS

We identified 15 relevant studies, including 13 virus culture and 2 contact tracing studies. For 5 virus culture studies, the last day on which SARS-CoV-2 was isolated occurred within 10 days of symptom onset. For another 5 studies, SARS-CoV-2 was isolated beyond day 10 for approximately 3% of included patients. The remaining 3 virus culture studies included patients with severe or critical disease; SARS-CoV-2 was isolated up to day 32 in one study. Two studies identified immunocompromised patients from whom SARS-CoV-2 was isolated for up to 20 days. Both contact tracing studies, when close contacts were first exposed greater than 5 days after symptom onset in the index case, found no evidence of laboratory-confirmed onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 patients with mild-to-moderate illness are highly unlikely to be infectious beyond 10 days of symptoms. However, evidence from a limited number of studies indicates that patients with severe-to-critical illness or who are immunocompromised, may shed infectious virus for longer.

The effectiveness of non-contact thermal screening as a means of identifying cases of Covid-19: a rapid review of the evidence

The aim of this rapid review is to summarise the evidence on non-contact thermal screening as a method through which to identify cases and reduce the spread of coronavirus disease (Covid-19). The rapid review was conducted in accordance with Cochrane guidelines, with a systematic search of published peer-reviewed articles and non-peer-reviewed pre-prints undertaken from 1 January 2000 up to 7 October 2020. Eleven studies were included. One observational study and two mathematical modelling studies were conducted in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic; the remaining studies were conducted during the influenza A pandemic (H1N1) 2009 (n = 7) or middle east respiratory syndrome (n = 1) pandemics. One systematic review and three rapid reviews were identified and screened for relevant studies. Evidence on the effectiveness of thermal screening contained within this review was limited to points of entry (i.e., airports); thus the applicability to other community settings is uncertain. Thermal screening, implemented as part of a composite of screening measures (self-report of relevant symptoms, contact/travel history), was ineffective in identifying infectious individuals and limiting the spread of disease. Based on limited, low certainty evidence, non-contact thermal screening is ineffective in limiting the spread of Covid-19.

Pharmacists in general practice: a qualitative process evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) study

BACKGROUND

There is some evidence to suggest that pharmacists integrated into primary care improves patient outcomes and prescribing quality. Despite this growing evidence, there is a lack of detail about the context of the role.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the implementation of The General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention (pharmacists integrating into general practice within a non-randomized pilot study in Ireland), the experiences of study participants and lessons for future implementation.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Process evaluation with a descriptive qualitative approach conducted in four purposively selected GP practices.

METHODS

A process evaluation with a descriptive qualitative approach was conducted in four purposively selected GP practices. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-three participants (three pharmacists, four GPs, four patients, four practice nurses, four practice managers and four practice administrators) were interviewed. Themes reported include day-to-day practicalities (incorporating location and space, systems and procedures and pharmacists' tasks), relationships and communication (incorporating GP/pharmacist mode of communication, mutual trust and respect, relationship with other practice staff and with patients) and role perception (incorporating shared goals, professional rewards, scope of practice and logistics).

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists working within the general practice team have potential to improve prescribing quality. This process evaluation found that a pharmacist joining the general practice team was well accepted by the GP and practice staff and effective interprofessional relationships were described. Patients were less clear of the overall benefits. Important barriers (such as funding, infrastructure and workload) and facilitators (such as teamwork and integration) to the intervention were identified which will be incorporated into a pilot cluster randomized controlled trial.

Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Limited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve medicines management for patients, particularly those with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This study aimed to develop and assess the feasibility of an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland.

DESIGN

Non-randomised pilot study.

SETTING

Primary care in Ireland.

PARTICIPANTS

Four general practices, purposively sampled and recruited to reflect a range of practice sizes and demographic profiles.

INTERVENTION

A pharmacist joined the practice team for 6 months (10 hours/week) and undertook medication reviews (face to face or chart based) for adult patients, provided prescribing advice, supported clinical audits and facilitated practice-based education.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Anonymised practice-level medication (eg, medication changes) and cost data were collected. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data were collected on a subset of older adults (aged ≥65 years) with polypharmacy using patient questionnaires, before and 6 weeks after medication review by the pharmacist.

RESULTS

Across four practices, 786 patients were identified as having 1521 prescribing issues by the pharmacists. Issues relating to deprescribing medications were addressed most often by the prescriber (59.8%), compared with cost-related issues (5.8%). Medication changes made during the study equated to approximately €57 000 in cost savings assuming they persisted for 12 months. Ninety-six patients aged ≥65 years with polypharmacy were recruited from the four practices for PROM data collection and 64 (66.7%) were followed up. There were no changes in patients' treatment burden or attitudes to deprescribing following medication review, and there were conflicting changes in patients' self-reported quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

This non-randomised pilot study demonstrated that an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices is feasible to implement and has potential to improve prescribing quality. This study provides rationale to conduct a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

The Association Between Drug Burden Index (DBI) and Health-Related Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study of the 'Oldest Old' (LiLACS NZ)

BACKGROUND

The prescribing of medications with anticholinergic and/or sedative properties is considered potentially inappropriate in older people (due to their side-effect profile), and the Drug Burden Index (DBI) is an evidence-based tool which measures exposure to these medications. Life and Living in Advanced Age: a Cohort Study in New Zealand (LiLACS NZ) is an ongoing longitudinal study investigating the determinants of healthy ageing. Using data from LiLACS NZ, this study aimed to determine whether a higher DBI was associated with poorer outcomes (hospitalisation, falls, mortality and cognitive function and functional status) over 36 months follow-up.

METHODS

LiLACS NZ consists of two cohorts: Māori (the indigenous population of New Zealand) aged ≥ 80 years and non-Māori aged 85 years at the time of enrolment. Data relating to regularly prescribed medications at baseline, 12 months and 24 months were used in this study. Medications with anticholinergic and/or sedative properties (i.e. medications with a DBI > 0) were identified using the Monthly Index of Medical Specialities (MIMS) medication formulary, New Zealand. DBI was calculated for everyone enrolled at each time point. The association between DBI at baseline and outcomes was evaluated throughout a series of 12-month follow-ups using negative binomial (hospitalisations and falls), Cox (mortality) and linear (cognitive function and functional status) regression analyses (significance p < 0.05). Regression models were adjusted for age, gender, general practitioner (GP) visits, socioeconomic deprivation, number of medicines prescribed and one of the following: prior hospitalisation, history of falls, baseline cognitive function [Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS)] or baseline functional status [Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL)].

RESULTS

Full demographic data were obtained for 671, 510 and 403 individuals at baseline, 12 months and 24 months, respectively. Overall, 31%, 30% and 34% of individuals were prescribed a medication with a DBI > 0 at baseline, 12 months and 24 months, respectively. At baseline and 12 months, non-Māori had a greater mean DBI (0.28 ± 0.5 and 0.27 ± 0.5, respectively) compared to Māori (0.16 ± 0.3 and 0.18 ± 0.5, respectively). At baseline, the most commonly prescribed medicines with a DBI > 0 were zopiclone, doxazosin, amitriptyline and codeine. In Māori, a higher DBI was significantly associated with a greater risk of mortality: at 36 months follow-up, adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] 1.89 (1.11-3.20), p = 0.02. In non-Māori, a higher DBI was significantly associated with a greater risk of mortality [at 12 months follow-up, adjusted hazard ratio (95% CIs) 2.26 (1.09-4.70), p = 0.03] and impaired cognitive function [at 24 months follow-up, adjusted mean difference in 3MS score (95% CIs) 0.89 (- 3.89 to - 0.41), p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Using data from LiLACS NZ, a higher DBI was significantly associated with a greater risk of mortality (in Māori and non-Māori) and impaired cognitive function (in non-Māori). This highlights the importance of employing strategies to manage the prescribing of medications with a DBI > 0 in older adults.

The effectiveness of integrating clinical pharmacists within general practice to optimise prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: A protocol for a systematic review

Introduction: Coordinating prescribing for patients with polypharmacy is a challenge for general practitioners. Pharmacists may improve management and outcomes for patients with polypharmacy. This systematic review aims to examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to optimise prescribing and improve health outcomes in patients with polypharmacy in primary care settings.  Methods: The review will be reported using the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of 10 databases from inception to present, with no language restrictions will be conducted. Studies will be included where they evaluate the clinical or cost-effectiveness of a clinical pharmacist in primary care on potentially inappropriate prescriptions using validated indicators and number of medicines. Secondary outcomes will include health related quality of life measures, health service utilisation, clinical outcomes and data relating to cost effectiveness. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after, interrupted-time-series and health economic studies will be eligible for inclusion.  Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Data will be extracted using a standard form. Risk of bias in all included studies will be assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria. Economic studies will be assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list as per the Cochrane Handbook for critical appraisal of methodological quality. A narrative synthesis will be performed, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Where data support quantitative synthesis, a meta-analysis will be performed. Discussion: This systematic review will give an overview of the effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to improve prescribing and health outcomes in a vulnerable patient group. This will provide evidence to policy makers on strategies involving clinical pharmacists integrated within general practice, to address issues which arise in polypharmacy and multimorbidity.  PROSPERO Registration:  CRD42019139679 (28/08/19).

Does potentially inappropriate prescribing predict an increased risk of admission to hospital and mortality? A longitudinal study of the 'oldest old'

Background

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is associated with negative health outcomes, including hospitalisation and mortality. Life and Living in Advanced Age: a Cohort Study in New Zealand (LiLACS NZ) is a longitudinal study of Māori (the indigenous population of New Zealand) and non-Māori octogenarians. Health disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous populations are prevalent internationally and engagement of indigenous populations in health research is necessary to understand and address these disparities. Using LiLACS NZ data, this study reports the association of PIP with hospitalisations and mortality prospectively over 36-months follow-up.

Methods

PIP, from pharmacist applied criteria, was reported as potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs). The association between PIP and hospitalisations (all-cause, cardiovascular disease-specific and ambulatory-sensitive) and mortality was determined throughout a series of 12-month follow-ups using binary logistic (hospitalisations) and Cox (mortality) regression analysis, reported as odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs), respectively, and the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Full demographic data were obtained for 267 Māori and 404 non-Māori at baseline, 178 Māori and 332 non-Māori at 12-months, and 122 Māori and 281 non-Māori at 24-months. The prevalence of any PIP (i.e. ≥1 PIM and/or PPO) was 66, 75 and 72% for Māori at baseline, 12-months and 24-months, respectively. In non-Māori, the prevalence of any PIP was 62, 71 and 73% at baseline, 12-months and 24-months, respectively. At each time-point, there were more PPOs than PIMs; at baseline Māori were exposed to a significantly greater proportion of PPOs compared to non-Māori (p = 0.02). In Māori: PPOs were associated with a 1.5-fold increase in hospitalisations and mortality. In non-Māori, PIMs were associated with a double risk of mortality.

Conclusions

PIP was associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality in this cohort. Omissions appear more important for Māori in predicting hospitalisations, and PIMs were more important in non-Māori in predicting mortality. These results suggest understanding prescribing outcomes across and between population groups is needed and emphasises prescribing quality assessment is useful.

The effectiveness of integrating clinical pharmacists within general practice to optimise prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: A protocol for a systematic review

Introduction: Coordinating prescribing for patients with polypharmacy is a challenge for general practitioners. Pharmacists may improve management and outcomes for patients with polypharmacy. This systematic review aims to examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to optimise prescribing and improve health outcomes in patients with polypharmacy in primary care settings.  Methods: The review will be reported using the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of 10 databases from inception to present, with no language restrictions will be conducted. Studies will be included where they evaluate the clinical or cost-effectiveness of a clinical pharmacist in primary care on potentially inappropriate prescriptions using validated indicators and number of medicines. Secondary outcomes will include health related quality of life measures, health service utilisation, clinical outcomes and data relating to cost effectiveness. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after, interrupted-time-series and health economic studies will be eligible for inclusion.  Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Data will be extracted using a standard form. Risk of bias in all included studies will be assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria. Economic studies will be assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list as per the Cochrane Handbook for critical appraisal of methodological quality. A narrative synthesis will be performed, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Where data support quantitative synthesis, a meta-analysis will be performed. Discussion: This systematic review will give an overview of the effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to improve prescribing and health outcomes in a vulnerable patient group. This will provide evidence to policy makers on strategies involving clinical pharmacists integrated within general practice, to address issues which arise in polypharmacy and multimorbidity.  PROSPERO Registration:  CRD42019139679 (28/08/19).

Supporting prescribing in Irish primary care: protocol for a non-randomised pilot study of a general practice pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in primary care

Background

Prescribing for patients taking multiple medicines (i.e. polypharmacy) is challenging for general practitioners (GPs). Limited evidence suggests that the integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve the management of these patients. The aim of this study is to develop and test an intervention involving pharmacists, working within GP practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland, which has a mixed public and private primary healthcare system.

Methods

This non-randomised pilot study will use a mixed-methods approach. Four general practices will be purposively sampled and recruited. A pharmacist will join the practice team for 6 months. They will participate in the management of repeat prescribing and undertake medication reviews (which will address high-risk prescribing and potentially inappropriate prescribing, deprescribing and cost-effective and generic prescribing) with adult patients. Pharmacists will also provide prescribing advice regarding the use of preferred drugs, undertake clinical audits, join practice team meetings and facilitate practice-based education. Throughout the 6-month intervention period, anonymised practice-level medication (e.g. medication changes) and cost data will be collected. A nested Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) study will be undertaken during months 4 and 5 of the 6-month intervention period to explore the impact of the intervention in older adults (aged ≥ 65 years). For this, a sub-set of 50 patients aged ≥ 65 years with significant polypharmacy (≥ 10 repeat medicines) will be recruited from each practice and invited to a medication review with the pharmacist. PROMs and healthcare utilisation data will be collected using patient questionnaires, and a 6-week follow-up review conducted. Acceptability of the intervention will be explored using pre- and post-intervention semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. Quantitative and qualitative data analysis will be undertaken and an economic evaluation conducted.

Discussion

This non-randomised pilot study will provide evidence regarding the feasibility and potential effectiveness of general practice-based pharmacists in Ireland and provide data on whether a randomised controlled trial of this intervention is indicated. It will also provide a deeper understanding as to how a pharmacist working as part of the general practice team will affect organisational processes and professional relationships in a mixed public and private primary healthcare system.

Community pharmacists' views of using a screening tool to structure medicines use reviews for older people: findings from qualitative interviews

Background The Medicines use review (MUR) service, provided by community pharmacists, seeks to optimise patients’ use of medicines. There is limited evidence on the clinical effectiveness of this service. Structuring MURs to include an assessment of prescribing appropriateness, facilitated by a validated prescribing screening tool, has the capacity to enhance this service. Objective To explore community pharmacists’ views on the facilitators and barriers towards the utilisation of a screening tool as a guide to conducting structured MURs. Setting Community Pharmacy, Northern Ireland. Method Using the 14 domain Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), semi-structured interviews were conducted with community pharmacists. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework method. Main Outcome Measure Pharmacists’ views towards utilisation of a screening tool as a guide to conducting structured MURs. Results Based on the analysis of 15 interviews, 11 TDF domains (‘Knowledge’, ‘Skills’, ‘Social and professional role and identity’, ‘Beliefs about capabilities’, ‘Beliefs about consequences’, ‘Reinforcement’, ‘Goals’, ‘Memory, attention and decision process’, ‘Environmental context and resources’, ‘Social influences’, ‘Behavioural regulation’) were deemed relevant. Facilitators included: knowledge of patients, clinical knowledge, perceived professional role, patients’ clinical outcomes, influence of peers. Barriers included: prioritisation of other clinical activities, inability to access patients’ clinical information, perceived alienation from the primary healthcare team and staffing issues. Conclusions Using the TDF, key facilitators and barriers were identified in the use of a screening tool as a guide to conducting MURs. These findings may assist in further development of MURs as a means to optimise patients’ medicines use.

Public information campaign on aflatoxin contamination of maize grains in market stores in Benin, Ghana and Togo

Rotary International with the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) conducted an information campaign from 2000 to 2004 to increase public awareness of aflatoxin in Benin, Ghana and Togo. Key informant interviews with 2416 respondents showed poor baseline knowledge of aflatoxin and its health risks. The campaign included monitoring of aflatoxin contamination in maize grains from market stores in 38 cities and towns. Aflatoxin concentration in contaminated samples ranged from 24 to 117.5 ng g(-1) in Benin, from 0.4 to 490.6 ng g(-1) in Ghana, and from 0.7 to 108.8 ng g(-1) in Togo. The campaign significantly increased public awareness that populations were exposed to high levels of aflatoxin. The number of maize traders who were informed about the toxin increased 10.3 and 3.2 times in Togo and Benin, respectively; at least 33% more traders believed the information in each of Benin and Togo; 11.4 and 28.4% more consumers sorted out and discarded bad grains in Benin and Ghana, respectively. This paper concludes that sustained public education can help reduce aflatoxin contamination.

First Report of Aflatoxin in Dried Yam Chips in Benin

Dried yam (Dioscorea spp.) chips are widely consumed in Bénin but are often attacked by molds. Invasion of food by Aspergillus flavus may lead to aflatoxin contamination. We report here the result of a survey on the sanitary quality of dried yam chips in Bénin. During July and August 2000, 50 dried yam chips samples were collected from different points in the marketing chain; 10 samples were collected from each of 5 stages: producers, wholesalers, retailers, dried yam-based food sellers and consumers. Aflatoxin content was assayed by the bio-luminescence method (1) after methanol/water extraction. Aflatoxins were detected in all dried yam chip samples, with levels ranging from 2.2 to 200 ppb and a mean value of 14 ppb. An aflatoxin concentration higher than the European Union's maximum residue limit (MRL) of 4 ppb was found in 98% of the samples (N = 50), while 6% had an aflatoxin concentration higher than the World Health Organization's MRL of 20 ppb. Molds were analyzed from two samples, each with aflatoxin levels around 5 ppb, on colony unit medium specific for A. flavus (2). Aspergillus spp. were detected in the inner part of dried yam chips of both samples, with a mean level of 9,000 CFU/g. Fusarium colonies were also present but were not identified to species. References: (1) D. Champiat and J. Larpent. Bio-chimie-luminescence: Principes et Applications. Masson, Paris, France. 1993. (2) P. J. Cotty. Mycopathologia 125:157, 1994.

Resistance to aflatoxin accumulation in kernels of maize inbreds selected for ear rot resistance in West and Central Africa

Thirty-six inbred lines selected in West and Central Africa for moderate to high resistance to maize ear rot under conditions of severe natural infection were screened for resistance to aflatoxin contamination using the previously established kernel screening assay. Results showed that more than half the inbreds accumulated aflatoxins at levels as low as or lower than the resistant U.S. lines GT-MAS:gk or MI82. In 10 selected aflatoxin-resistant or aflatoxin-susceptible inbreds, Aspergillus flavus growth, which was quantified using an A. flavus transformant containing a GUS-beta-tubulin reporter gene construct, was, in general, positively related to aflatoxin accumulation. However, one aflatoxin-resistant inbred supported a relatively high level of fungal infection, whereas two susceptibles supported relatively low fungal infection. When kernels of the 10 tested lines were profiled for proteins using sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, significant variations from protein profiles of U.S. lines were observed. Confirmation of resistance in promising African lines in field trials may significantly broaden the resistant germplasm base available for managing aflatoxin contamination through breeding approaches. Biochemical resistance markers different from those being identified and characterized in U.S. genotypes, such as ones inhibitory to aflatoxin biosynthesis rather than to fungal infection, may also be identified in African lines. These discoveries could significantly enhance the host resistance strategy of pyramiding different traits into agronomically useful maize germplasm to control aflatoxin contamination.